US troops coming home? Obama to say on Wednesday

The main reason? Obama's budget would reduce revenue by a net $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

As a result, the amount of interest owed on the national debt would go up by another $519 billion. And that interest is the reason spending as a whole would rise under the president's budget.

"Outlays would be greater ... in each of the next 10 years, primarily because the proposed reduction in revenues would boost deficits and thus the costs of paying interest on the additional debt that would accumulate," CBO wrote.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Tax cuts don't create debt. :lamo

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

Tell it to the Chinese. When the GOP passed the tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts it created debt.

Click to expand...

Gargantuan said:

Yes they do. Where do you get the notion they don't from? Because revenue stayed the same under Reagan? Nope - that's because he cut loopholes/subsidies.

Obama's real deficit problem: His tax cuts - Mar. 18, 2011

Are you smarter than the CBO adpst?

Click to expand...

apdst said:

So, what are the Dems and The Messiah waiting on? They should have made all those cuts, by now.

Click to expand...

... So why have two presidents and a decade of Congress dumped so many lives and so much money into a country that poses no threat to us? Afghanistan is an impoverished, anarchic, largely illiterate land that's split into ancient tribal factions and innumerable fiefdoms controlled by rival warlords. They have no desire or ability to attack us, some 8,000 miles away.

The only reason we're given for being in Afghanistan is that we must keep the al-Qaida terrorists network from establishing bases there. But -- like bin Laden -- al-Qaida left this country years ago and now operates transnationally in Pakistan, Yemen, Uzbekistan and elsewhere, including England and Germany.

Yet, we're told we must continue to pour American lives, dollars and reputation into Afghanistan. But ... why? To create a central, democratically elected government with a 300,000-member army and police force, we're told. But why? To stabilize the country, they say. But, why? To keep al-Qaida out, they repeat, closing the endless loop on a Kafkaesque rationale. ...

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

They are waiting on economic recovery from the Bush Recession. Spending cuts need to me made under a strong economy to avoid worsening the recession. Few would argue that we are in a strong economy right now. As the economy improves both spending cuts and the elimination of tax breaks will need to be undertaken to address our deficit spending.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Wha...wha...what?!? :lamo

Where the hell do you get this stuff??

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

excellent article:
The Unanswered Question in Afghanistan Is, Why? | Truthout

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

Sure wish that was not an unanswered question. I sure as hell would like to know!

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

The experts...........the majority of economists. :sun

Click to expand...

Gargantuan said:

They are actually. Large, draconian spending cuts can severely hurt an economy. Please do some research.

Click to expand...

Gargantuan said:

They are actually. Large, draconian spending cuts can severely hurt an economy. Please do some research.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

I doubt there's anyone--with half a brain--that is going to claim that spending cuts are bad for the economy.

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

It is true, people with half a brain agree with your notion. 85% of economists with a whole brain however agree the time for spending cuts is in a boom economy.

"If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle, not yearly (85% agree) – Essentially, this means that, rather than ensuring that each yearly budget spends only the income from that year, we instead allow defecit spending when the economy is poor, to be recuperated when the economy picks up again. The goal, of course, is to not hit the economy with a double whammy: lowered government spending (as a result of less tax revenue) and business decline, occurring at the same time. Similarly, such a policy would lead to higher tax rates and/or lowered government spending in boom times, to recover the excess spent during the bad years. The end result would hopefully be a smoother economic cycle, with the booms being tamped down a bit and the busts being countered."

When Economists Agree, Part 1 | The Amateur Financier

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Well, if it's true, why is the economy still in the ****ter and probably going to get worse?

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

It was a very bad recession the Republicans left us with, the worst since the Great Depression. Slowly however, things are improving. We are creating jobs, the stock market is up, business profits are up, consumer spending is up. It will take time for complete recovery, severe recessions are not something that can be fixed overnight. The high cost of gasoline worldwide due to our approaching world peak oil is also hindering recovery.

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

Catawba spews more propaganda!!

Republicans didn’t leave us with this recession anymore than Democrats did. Obama was in the Democrat controlled Senate in 2006 and voting for the crap that helped to get us into this recession. The House was controlled by the Democrats in 2006 too and likewise must share the blame for the recession.

If you don’t agree because you think the President’s party is to blame when he is in power, I expect that you will put all blame for this unprecedented rescission at the feet of the Democrats.

You won’t though because you are a political hack and logic isn’t within your realm.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

I will agree with you that there is plenty of blame to go around. What the government does control, like the deficit, they have managed poorly, both parties. Both spent. Neither really addresses how to pay for the spending. I think democrats spend for better reasons, and some likely think republicans spend for better reasons. But the point is they both spend.

As for business, I stil say other factors are involved here, beinging with but not limited to an increasingly international economy that is lowering the standard here.

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

I was with you up to the last sentence. Care to clarify?

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Out sourcing, look where manufacturing is today. We don't make much here. Slave labor in China can do it far cheaper. This, for example, has a much larger effect on the economy than anything out leaders can do.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Out sourcing, look where manufacturing is today. We don't make much here. Slave labor in China can do it far cheaper. This, for example, has a much larger effect on the economy than anything out leaders can do.

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

When the GOP passed the tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts it created debt.

Click to expand...

Catawba said:

Spending cuts need to me made under a strong economy to avoid worsening the recession.

Click to expand...